Why Firaxis hold back Civ5 info?

[frekk]

Of course do not release a feature could avoid critics, but let me mind you, it also means no praise... and no advertisement... and no discussion ... and no one know Civ5 is great.

Well now ... they release the ones they think will build the most anticipation. Sometimes I think they do purposefully release a few that will draw criticism, because some criticism is good; it gets people talking. So, they drop the 1upt bomb, for instance. Lots of excitement, lots of talking and arguing.

What they also do, is try to use language and images to make things appealing - without actually revealing much. I mean, look at the trailer. It says nothing specific about the game. It's just an image-building exercise.

Whether a change or feature is more welcomed or disliked by fans depends on the its nature.

In an ideal world, yes. In the real world that's only true at the individual level; communities impart biases.

The problem is who determine whether a critic is constructive or so called "knee-jerk"?
I mean who is the judge?

Does it matter? Which individuals are knee-jerk critics and which are constructive critics is irrelevant. What's relevant is that there *are* knee-jerk critics - it doesn't really matter who they are.

 

[hclass]

Does it matter? Which individuals are knee-jerk critics and which are constructive critics is irrelevant. What's relevant is that there *are* knee-jerk critics - it doesn't really matter who they are.

Yes it does matter.
If you can't even have a standard measure on who says "what" is contructive/knee-jerk, how do you arrive at a conclusion that it exist?

Just like if you can't even find someone to define what is a "ghost", you have no way to convince anyone that it exist.

Though it might sound abstract to you, but I think a critic is always constructive to the one who made it and to anyone who is willing to listen and analyze it.
You can, of course, immediately treat/judge any critic as knee-jerk critic, it is your choice... I mean it is you who make it so...

 

[frekk]

If you can't even have a standard measure on who says "what" is contructive/knee-jerk, how do you arrive at a conclusion that it exist? Just like if you can't even find someone to define what is a "ghost", you have no way to convince anyone that it exist.

Ah, well you're shifting goalposts now. You said "who" but now you've changed it to "what". I think we can certainly define knee-jerk criticism (do you really need me to?) but you asked "who" not "what". Who is a knee-jerk critic does not matter at all.

Though it might sound abstract to you, but I think a critic is always constructive

It doesn't sound abstract, it sounds naieve.

You can, of course, immediately treat/judge any critic as knee-jerk critic

That would be knee-jerk anti-criticism, which I'm sure exists too. But probably doesn't impact the release of details all that much.

 

[hclass]

Ah, well you're shifting goalposts now. You said "who" but now you've changed it to "what". I think we can certainly define knee-jerk criticism (do you really need me to?) but you asked "who" not "what". Who is a knee-jerk critic does not matter at all.

But the "who" who determines which who is knee-jerk critic does matter.
If no one is qualified as the judge, then there isn't any knee-jerk critic
or
if everyone is the judge, then the claim of knee-jerk critic is not listened by anyone else except the judges, again this means there isn't any knee-jerk critic because the claim find no ordinary audience.

Though the above might also sound naieve to you, but I can NOT stop myself from wanting to tell you...

It doesn't sound abstract, it sounds naieve.

 

[frekk]

But the "who" who determines which who is knee-jerk critic does matter.

No, not really. Because we don't need to know who specifically is a knee-jerk critic to know that there is some knee-jerk criticism.

If no one is qualified as the judge, then there isn't any knee-jerk critic

Perhaps, but it doesn't mean there isn't any knee-jerk criticism.

Some people just don't like something. Of course there are lots of things we all don't care for. For example, I don't like CivRev, but I don't feel the need to justify my dislike. I have no constructive criticism for it, because no matter what they do, I'm just not going to buy it, so I don't bother criticizing it.

If other people want to enjoy it - that's fine. Some people, however, feel the need to justify their dislikes by trying to make sure nobody else enjoys it either, thereby ensuring everyone else shares their opinion.

There don't need to be "qualified judges" to see this. Do you need a "qualified judge" to tell you the sun is bright or water is wet? We live in an era when people abandon their own judgement and common sense and lazily look to experts to define reality. We pride ourselves on our modern outlook, but in a way, we are even more credulous and passive about knowledge than our most primitive ancestors.

 

[hclass]

No, not really. Because we don't need to know who specifically is a knee-jerk critic to know that there is some knee-jerk criticism.

Are you suggesting that knee-jerk criticism is a direct creation of Hawking's BIG-BANG?

There don't need to be "qualified judges" to see this. Do you need a "qualified judge" to tell you the sun is bright or water is wet?

Though interesting but this is bad example. I can easily tweak it a bit to let you see a better analog of bright sun to knee-jerk critic:

If you like bright sun becuase it gives you warm summer and I don't like bright sun with a reason you don't agree. Is bright sun a good (you like) or bad (I don't) thing? In order to come to a conclusion we need a judge or at least a way to judge.

Sun is an object where you and I see it in our direct sense (unless you are blind), but whether bright sun is good or bad is subjective, when we want a result of argument on subjective issues, we will need a judge.

As a conclusion, critic is like bright sun. If you find it contructive, it is simply because you fiind it so AND the reverse is also true.

Some people, however, feel the need to justify their dislikes by trying to make sure nobody else enjoys it either, thereby ensuring everyone else shares their opinion.

Again, this is subjective, you can guess, but you can never prove nor convince me on the actual motive of a critic (particularly when it is online)

 

[Oerdin]

Some many previews and yet so little info, sigh!

Civ5 is just a computer game not not a movie... I simply don't understand what is the point/gain of keeping features in Civ5 a secret?

They probably don't know all the details themselves yet since the game isn't finished plus they want to build hype by dragging things out.

 

[trevort]

I don't know about the rest of the civfanatics community, but I'm not buying it until AFTER I have read several reviews AND the first patch is released. This will give me time to upgrade my computer if it's not up to snuff.

 

[hclass]

but I'm not buying it until AFTER I have read several reviews AND the first patch is released.

This immediately make me feel you must be a long time CIV fan, one with good experience. Ah! you are a registered member of this forum since 2002! No wonder...

 

[trevort]

This immediately make me feel you must be a long time CIV fan, one with good experience. Ah! you are a registered member of this forum since 2002! No wonder...

Correct! I didn't play CIV 1. I'm pretty sure I played CIV 2. Memory fails me on that. I KNOW that I played CIV 3. A lot. CIV 3 is still my favorite.

 

[frekk]

I don't know about the rest of the civfanatics community, but I'm not buying it until AFTER I have read several reviews AND the first patch is released. This will give me time to upgrade my computer if it's not up to snuff.

I probably won't be buying it for a year or more after it's released, but I will buy it, regardless of reviews. I hardly ever play vanilla; I mostly play mods. It takes about a year or so for the really big mods with loads of new units and features to begin to appear.

I may even wait longer than that, because you get a real deal buying an all-in-one diamond edition or the like rather than buying vanilla and expansions as they come out.

Plus, I will not upgrade my computer just for civ. Feels hard to justify spending hundreds or thousands of bucks just for a game that I'll only be playing 5 or 6 years.

 

[Buddhafish]

What would we talk about if Firaxis released all the details? We'd all talk about the stramge features, the civs who got snubbed, and anything else we can think of. But when they don't say what's happening, we all speculate and talk even more. I like the suspense. And I think that they want to keep the best and most out-there features to themselves so the fans will all wonder what it is and be all excited when it's an amazing feature. It's no fun to use if you know about it 6 months before the game comes out.

 

[Savoir10]

Just read on another thread that Civ V is still in Pre-Alpha. Which means some of the features may not have been finalised as yet.

Away you go boys, start spamming for your pet Love/hate/Whatever. You may still get it in the game.

 

[thungrim]

Why don't they give out any info?

Easy. Look at every piece of info so far:
- One unit per tile = Indignation and flaming
- X number of Civs = Indignation and flaming
- No Civ to represent _______ = Indignation and flaming
- Reworked diplomacy = Indignation and flaming
- No Religion (as we know it) = Indignation and flaming.

Does the community actually think it DESERVES more information with which to flame with?

 

[Gliese 581]

I've played civ since 1991 and I will immediately buy this game regardless of reviews.

Professional critics are no needed in the age of internet anyhow, it's better solved with statistics. For instance, I don't listen to critics when it comes to movies, I go to a swedish site called 'filmtipset' (the film tips) where I'll get a predicted score 1-5 out of 5 on an unrated movie based on comparisons between my previous movie ratings and corresponding ratings of people that have also rated the movie I'm interested in. This way I'm almost guaranteed to know beforehand if I'll like a movie or not.
I don't know why this hasn't catched on more in other areas (afaik). I guess it would suck for people working for Gamespot or IGN if the same system was popularized amongst gamers.

 

[hclass]

I probably won't be buying it for a year or more after it's released, but I will buy it, regardless of reviews. I hardly ever play vanilla; I mostly play mods. It takes about a year or so for the really big mods with loads of new units and features to begin to appear.

I may even wait longer than that, because you get a real deal buying an all-in-one diamond edition or the like rather than buying vanilla and expansions as they come out.

Plus, I will not upgrade my computer just for civ. Feels hard to justify spending hundreds or thousands of bucks just for a game that I'll only be playing 5 or 6 years.

All these posts sound like old/experience CIV fans all prefer to delay buying CIV5 -- that is an obvious indicator of BIG failure in CIV old marketing strategy. I think it is time for them to think it again with their old practice...

(*) I think they first have to have guts of facing pre-release criticism which normally based on kind of "anti-change" belief (and that is part of human nature, nothing extraordianry). They really need to be more optimistic towards bad responses (which might change via discussions). Generally speaking, at this point, only those who really care about CIV5 will take the trouble to critisize and they normally are potential buyers.

The only case I can think of, which I will fully support CIV5 publisher or developer to seal info of CIV5 is: when there is a competitor, spying contantly to steal new ideas from CIV5 hoping to publish a similar product just before CIV5 is released. Is this kind of competitor or competing product exist? If the answer is NO... then the marketing manager of CIV5 should read (*) a thousand times...

 

[hclass]

Why don't they give out any info?

Easy. Look at every piece of info so far:
- One unit per tile = Indignation and flaming
- X number of Civs = Indignation and flaming
- No Civ to represent _______ = Indignation and flaming
- Reworked diplomacy = Indignation and flaming
- No Religion (as we know it) = Indignation and flaming.

and all those on your list sum up = many people cares about coming CIV5.
Don't worry... trust me brother, they will buy.

Does the community actually think it DESERVES more information with which to flame with?

Customers is always rihgt!
Umm... you have used the word deserve on the wrong side. I think it should be:
Civ5 publisher deserves bad comments from all potential CIV5 buyers because they have naively kept CIV5 features a secret up to this point.

 

[Trias]

(*) I think they first have to have guts of facing pre-release criticism which normally based on kind of "anti-change" belief (and that is part of human nature, nothing extraordianry). They really need to be more optimistic towards bad responses (which might change via discussions). Generally speaking, at this point, only those who really care about CIV5 will take the trouble to critisize and they normally are potential buyers.

First, the presumption that they are release info only a bit at a time because they fear criticism is just silly. Rationing out the information released about a game is just (a tried and proven) way of maximizing media coverage about the game. More media coverage => more potential buyers.

Second, the number of people reading and discussing on civ fansites is incredibly small compared to the total pool of potential buyers. The people to convince to buy the game is the general gaming audience. The way to do that is by generating positive media coverage. Appeasing the fan base, is generally a very low priority for the PR department. (Alhtough the designers themselves may care more because frequently they were part of that fan base.)

The only case I can think of, which I will fully support CIV5 publisher or developer to seal info of CIV5 is: when there is a competitor, spying contantly to steal new ideas from CIV5 hoping to publish a similar product just before CIV5 is released. Is this kind of competitor or competing product exist? If the answer is NO... then the marketing manager of CIV5 should read (*) a thousand times...

Corporate espionage is a non-issue at this stage. Even if a competitor were to learn "vital information", they would be about 3 years behind in the development process. This kind of argument may only be valid about info on the actual release date and such.

 

[hclass]

First, the presumption that they are release info only a bit at a time because they fear criticism is just silly.

Then there are so many silly fellows here... sigh!
Unless you can prove that the one who is currently in charge of CIV5 marketing is not silly, otherwise, common sense tells me that, there stands a chance that, he/she might silily fear of criticism...

Rationing out the information released about a game is just (a tried and proven) way of maximizing media coverage about the game. More media coverage => more potential buyers.

Unfortunately, many here do believe that can't be done without side effects.

Second, the number of people reading and discussing on civ fansites is incredibly small compared to the total pool of potential buyers.

Lets say, I am the one who frequent civ forums and I encourage many of my friends to buy the game and some of them do buy Civ5 at the end. Are those cases counted as contribution due to reading and discussing on civ fansites?
So, I think it is not possible to prove your statement above by facts and figures.

Appeasing the fan base, is generally a very low priority for the PR department.

That make you sound like the PR department head and make them sound like fools.

 

[Trias]

Then there are so many silly fellows here... sigh!

You only just noticed.

Unless you can prove that the one who is currently in charge of CIV5 marketing is not silly, otherwise, common sense tells me that, there stands a chance that, he/she might silily fear of criticism...

If you look through the interviews you will find a quote from Jon Shaffer say exactly that.

Lets say, I am the one who frequent civ forums and I encourage many of my friends to buy the game and some of them do buy Civ5 at the end. Are those cases counted as contribution due to reading and discussing on civ fansites?
So, I think it is not possible to prove your statement above by facts and figures.

I never said there was no need to appease to fanbase (just that it was a low priotity). But the best wat to keep the fanbase talking about the game is by rationing the release of new info. You got to keep them hungry for new info. This coincides with the need to ration info to the media.